Kariong Sand and Soil Supplies Facility

We acknowledge the importance of recycling Construction and Demolition waste as part of the circular economy. We know that this kind of operation is not clean and should happen in a location that is well serviced by major roads, away from large residential areas and where the geography of prevailing winds minimize dust and noise traveling – or in a best case scenario the whole process (site) should be fully contained within a building, where air quality can be managed for worker’s safety, customers safety and community safety. Our submission raises concerns about the environment, air pollution (particularly silica dust), heavy transport and accountability.

i would like to show my support for this development for a number of reasons.
1. this will increase jobs for locals & benefit the community.
2. recycling materials keeps them out of land fill
3. benefits the environment.
4. good for the growth & reputation of the area.

i have known the applicant for a long time, and i have no doubt that this facility will be run in an efficient and responsible manner. This development is essential for progress in the region, and its approval will encourage similar responsible development throughout the state. We all, as residents of NSW, need these projects to provide employment in our state, and to keep up with technology in the recycling industry.
Please make positive move forward in NSW by approving this development. (from the silent majority)

I OBJECT to the proposed development - Kariong Soil & Sand Facility (SSD-8660) (SUB-9443834) for the following reasons:
1. Air quality and Odour - the potential detrimental impact of dust upon neighbouring residents, fauna (both native and domestic), flora and river systems. Exposure to toxic silica dust has potentially damaging respiratory outcomes such as lung disease/cancer, kidney disease and pulmonary disease.
2. Noise - this type of development project will have a significant impact on the residents, flora and fauna of the area and surrounding areas.
3. Traffic - not only will the volume of traffic increase significantly, also the types of vehicles accessing the proposed site will negatively impact upon the neighbouring rural residents. The roads which will be used to access the site are unsuitable for large trucks with trailers, and the volume of traffic will add to the congestion in already inefficient roadways. The traffic congestion, noise and odour of the trucks will also negatively impact the mental health of the residents, and potentially decimate the flora and fauna in the greater neighbouring area.
4. Inappropriate Site - the proposed development is at the edge of the industrial zone, neighbouring rural and semi-rural properties with close proximity to Kariong High School, Central Coast Sports College and the Juvenile Correction Facility all of which will be negatively impacted by the potential dust, odour, noise and traffic congestion.
The proposed development is NOT a light industry business. Concrete crushing emissions have potentially lethal outcomes for the neighbouring residents, flora and fauna and SHOULD NOT be approved in this area. I strenuously OBJECT to the proposed development.

Please see attached Objection letter with supporting TAR Report and Air Quality Impact Assessment.
Regards
Sheryl Edwards

I always support recycling and firmly believe all sectors will benefit. This project is great way that the local economy and all the stakeholders win the game.

My reasons for objecting to the Kariong Sand & Soil Supplies Facility (SSD-8660) are the following:
1) Noise and Vibrations - The noise and vibrations created by a concrete crushing facility will negatively impact on the mental health of the neighbouring residents, wildlife (birds, native and domestic animals) and other light industrial businesses in the area.
2) Air Quality and Odour - inhaled silica dust from development could have long term health impacts and is potentially lethal to the neighbouring residents, fauna, flora and rivers. Most neighbouring residents collect rainwater as their only source of water, the fallout of dust onto roofs being collected with the rain into the watertanks and then ingested by residents and animals would potentially create a devastating health crisis.
3) Traffic - the introduction of potentially hundreds of heavy trucks and trailers daily into a rural area on roads which are unsuitable would create a dangerous environment for residential traffic and wildlife, the truck congestion will negatively impact the mental health of residents, the truck noise and odour will negatively affect residents and surrounding businesses.
4) Inappropriate development - the proposed development is on the outer edge of the industrial park neighbouring rural and semi-rural properties. The negative health impacts and reach of the dust, noise, and traffic hazard will affect close neighbours, neighbouring suburbs, primary and secondary schools, and the Juvenile Detention Centre.
This development is NOT suitable for this area and I object to this proposal being approved.

I object to this proposed development because of the excessive level of dust being generated by truck movements and concrete crushing, also congestion and queueing problems in the immediate area will be unsafe and intolerable. Also the excessive noise levels generated from heavy vehicle movements and machinery operation. The development is too close to residential areas for such a development.

Please see attached communications.

I object to this proposed development because of the excessive level of dust being generated by truck movements and concrete crushing, also congestion and queueing problems in the immediate area will be unsafe and intolerable. Also the excessive noise levels generated from heavy vehicle movements and machinery operation. The development is too close to residential areas for such a development.

A good environmentally sound project!

I object to this proposed development because of the excessive level of dust being generated by truck movements and concrete crushing, also congestion and queueing problems in the immediate area will be unsafe and intolerable. Also the excessive noise levels generated from heavy vehicle movements and machinery operation. The development is too close to residential areas for such a development.

I object to this proposed development because of the excessive level of dust being generated by truck movements and concrete crushing, also congestion and queueing problems in the immediate area will be unsafe and intolerable. Also the excessive noise levels generated from heavy vehicle movements and machinery operation. The development is too close to residential areas for such a development.

Please see attached letter

I object to this proposed development because of the excessive level of dust being generated by truck movements and concrete crushing, also congestion and queueing problems in the immediate area will be unsafe and intolerable. Also the excessive noise levels generated from heavy vehicle movements and machinery operation. The development is too close to residential areas for such a development.

Please find attached comments from Central Coast Public Health Unit

I object to the proposed development (SSD-8660) for the following reasons:
1. Air quality & Odour - there is significant potential for a detrimental impact upon neighbouring residents and suburbs, flora and fauna (both native and domestic) and the river systems in the area and further from the site. The potential for silica dust poisoning is significant from inhalation of the dust (lung disease/cancer) and, as most properties collect rainwater from their roofs as their only source of water, silica dust settling on the roofs and mixing with the water could create a health crisis in the area.
2. Noise - the noise from this type of development would significantly and detrimentally affect the neighbouring residents, wildlife and other light industry businesses in the area.
3. Traffic - potentially hundreds of heavy trucks and trailers being introduced daily into a rural area on roads which are unsuitable would negatively and dangerously affect the residential traffic and wildlife, the truck congestion will negatively impact the mental health of residents, the truck noise and odour will negatively affect residents and surrounding businesses.
4. Inappropriate Site - the proposed development is on the outer edge of the industrial park neighbouring rural and semi-rural properties. The negative health impacts and reach of the toxic dust, noise and traffic hazard will affect close neighbours, neighbouring suburbs, primary and high schools, and Juvenile Detention Centre.
This development is NOT suitable for this area and I strenuously OBJECT to this proposal being approved.

Firstly this project should be rejected as it does not qualify as a State Significant Development under the definition given on the Planning, Major Projects website, which states, “Under State Environmental Planning Policy (Major Project) 2005, state significant sites are typically sites that the Minister for Planning considers may have a wider social, economic or environmental significance for the community, for example universities, hospitals, employment precincts and major residential developments. The site may also have redevelopment significance important to implementing State planning objectives.”

Now that waste generated elsewhere can no longer be exported it seems there is a move to shift waste products to the Central Coast. Local government bodies should find ways of looking after the waste generated in their own areas.

I object to this proposal as it has the following impacts:

• Traffic: Significant increased traffic locally and on the M1 from trucks which will result in increased noise, air pollution and safety issues.
• Water Catchment: Pollution from airborne contaminants into nearby Pile Creek and the Central Coast's drinking water supply.
• Population Health: Airborne contaminants will impact on around 2000 homes, nearby workers, 2 schools, day care facilities and to the south special infrastructure zoning containing the Baxter Juvenile Justice Centre and Riding for the Disabled. Significant noise pollution will impact on local residents and workers from heavy industrial activity and traffic.
• Nature: there are large tracts of undeveloped environmental land, some of which is identified as ‘Open Space’ assets for Central Coast community and these areas contain a number of species including pygmy possums and rare prostrate Hibbertia.
• Rural: There will be airborne contaminants on food produced in the area on farms.
Notes:
1. The above list is not prioritised.
2. Reference to airborne contaminants refers to dust, micobiological and other particulate matter.

The proposal does not conform to the strategic goals and objectives set out by the NSW State Government in the Central Coast Regional Plan (2036) as it creates negative impacts (see points above) on the community, environmental assets, rural land and the existing and future lifestyles for the surrounding community.

Under the Gosford Local Environment Plan (2014) the site is zoned IN1 – General Industrial. The proposed development and use is for heavy industry which is not general industry and is not compatible with surrounding land uses.
Regardless of any attempts at containment of noise and airborne contaminants there will still be signifcant risks and impacts on the surrounding community and locality as the proposed activities are difficult to control.

Thankyou for your consideration

I object to destruction of the endangered Melaleuca stand and pygmy possum habitat. This project should not be allowed to destroy the environment. The pygmy possums and their habitat must be protected, removing and relocating them will not guarantee their survival because this relies on them being found uninjured. The 10m buffer around the Melaleucas is not large enough to protect these trees. The Melaleucas and pygmy possums on the site must be protected in their entirety, none should be lost to this project.

The central coast has suffered enough environmental damage and the Somersby region in particular cannot support such infrastructure. Going to Somersby Falls after heavy rain shows so much gritty runoff from the facilities already there. This development would increase the damage to local ecosystems, and without any way of remedying it. Ruth Conwell